According to Urban dictionary, it's someone who makes embraces or friendly gestures (eg. hugging someone, or putting one's hand on someone's shoulder) without actually touching the other person.
I'm not sure you'd want to use the term "disease" though. There's no such thing as a good disease and, by definition, all diseases have adverse effects on the diseased. Homosexuality doesn't have an adverse effect - not a physical one, at least. It doesn't even really hinder reproduction. The need and desire to reproduce is still a part of many homosexuals (as many adopted children and surrogate mothers can attest to) and the ability to reproduce still exists. True, heterosexual desire is meant, from a natural standpoint, to increase reproduction but that doesn't mean that the desire to reproduce doesn't exist outside heterosexual desire.
Rather than a disease, I'd just call it a personality trait.
Yeah. Calling it a disease makes it sound like you pity the person for having it, and that they really shouldn't have it. In the current social climate regarding tolerance, it's not a good idea.
So, not "disease." Perhaps it could be called an "abnormality" or "dysfunction." I mean that psychologically or whatever--like they have a dysfunction; not that they are, themselves, dysfunctional. "Abnormality" seems okay to me because I would define heterosexuality as normal (ie. of the norm), thus being an outlier from normal would then be abnormal.
I wouldn't say it's "genetic" though--at least not entirely. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition toward it, but I disagree both that it's entirely genetic and... for lack of a better word, "uncurable" (I really tried to think of a different word) as people (my cousin for example) are fully capable of first being hetero, then turning gay, and then being hetero again.
EDIT: Someone will want to respond to this by referring to Kinsey's sexuality continuum (ie. people can be partially gay/hetero), but I'm just referring to being gay according to two factors: 1) are you presently having same-sex physical encounters; and 2) do you desire to have same-sex physical encounters.
Again, the current theory is that this is an epigenetics thing, not a pure genetics thing. This explains why there's a spectrum of sexualities. Depending on the amount and types of hormones a fetus receives at birth, the certain genes will be turned off and on and the sexuality of the resulting baby will be different.
You know one term that really grinds my gears... "metrosexual."
I hate that word. I mean, you could say someone is "effeminate" or "eccentric" and that's fine. But the word "metrosexual" sounds almost as retarded as "chillax."
Is super kinky everything but intercorse forplay before marriage ok? Cos id settle for that.
Wow. Don't you have a spell check or something?
It's a slippy slope. Sure, foreplay before marriage might be somewhat reasonable, but your hormones during that experience can get you so turned on that you can end up going further more quickly than you intended.
I don't know who these people are who divorced supposedly because they aren't "sexually compatible," but it makes much more sense to me to reason that someone is far more likely to regret having sex too early in the relationship than to regret having waited until the first time was all the more special.
As for not having sex often enough... women don't want it as badly as often as men do. I can say for certain that I think about it almost every day, but my wife sure doesn't. Does that mean I feel inadequate? No. Do I feel frustrated when I'm interested and she's not? Sure I do. Not always, but sometimes.
Physical touch is my secondary lovelanguage (my primary one being words of affirmation). My wife's primary love language is quality time. Certainly, sex is important to me, but I wouldn't divorce my wife simply because I'm not having it enough. Besides, if we're not having it enough, and she genuinely isn't interested very often even after I told her I wanted to have it more, there must be a reason why she's not interested. That is to say, she's unhappy about something or other, and her unhappiness is affecting her interest in physical intimacy.
I know about this from personal experience. And I can say for certain that anyone willing to lose their best and closest friend, to whom they gave, in view of everyone close to them, a special commitment to love, honor and cherish that person for the rest of their life... to lose this person who means more than life itself over something like not having sex often enough is stupid. STUPID.
Oh dear lord, I have to reply to that. I may be old as dirt, and therefore it's very weird to discuss this with much younger people, but; I am a female that wants sex every day, and I've been married longer than most of you have been alive. I get so tired of us all being portrayed in movies and on t.v. as people with no sexual desire, whose poor husbands have to beg for it to get it on their birthdays and Christmas. Not all women are the same, just as all men are not the same.
Oh dear lord, I have to reply to that. I may be old as dirt, and therefore it's very weird to discuss this with much younger people, but; I am a female that wants sex every day, and I've been married longer than most of you have been alive. I get so tired of us all being portrayed in movies and on t.v. as people with no sexual desire, whose poor husbands have to beg for it to get it on their birthdays and Christmas. Not all women are the same, just as all men are not the same.
I didn't say women have no sexual desire. I meant as a general rule women are less driven by sex than men. I know that I am more so than my wife.
From what I understand, everyone has different love languages (ie. ways in which they primarily express love toward others and desire for others to express love to them). A woman can certainly have physical touch as her primary love language. I've just found that it's much more likely for men than for women.
EDIT: The reason why I say words of affirmation are my primary love language is because, between not having any sex or not having any affirmation/encouragement, I'm pretty sure the lack of affirmation (with sex) would make me unhappier than would lack of sex (with affirmation). Both are important to me, just one less so than the other.
Oh dear lord, I have to reply to that. I may be old as dirt, and therefore it's very weird to discuss this with much younger people, but; I am a female that wants sex every day, and I've been married longer than most of you have been alive. I get so tired of us all being portrayed in movies and on t.v. as people with no sexual desire, whose poor husbands have to beg for it to get it on their birthdays and Christmas. Not all women are the same, just as all men are not the same.
Good lord, what TV and movies have you been watching?!
Most of the stuff out now has the woman totally ready to have sex at the drop of a hat. Sometimes before the hat drops. Of course, most of those characters were unmarried, and I don't really remember the on screen sexual lifestyles of married couples, so maybe they have the libido suddenly disappear with marriage or something. I dunno.
See the preview for This Is Forty? Guy asks his wife if she wants sex, she gives him the shoulder shrug and a unpleasant sound like, meh, I was gonna wash the dog... True most movies and shows show single young women all hot and bothered, and I don't watch How I Met Your Mother, so had no idea how they handled a married couple. I see very little happily married people with good sex lives in the media. Sorry to gross out the youngsters here!
See the preview for This Is Forty? Guy asks his wife if she wants sex, she gives him the shoulder shrug and a unpleasant sound like, meh, I was gonna wash the dog... True most movies and shows show single young women all hot and bothered, and I don't watch How I Met Your Mother, so had no idea how they handled a married couple. I see very little happily married people with good sex lives in the media. Sorry to gross out the youngsters here!
The media thrives on controversy. They want people in the public eye to have family/marital problems because it generates news and gossip.
The unfortunate thing about TV shows and movies is that they have such an impact on so many, and they are no standard by which people should measure successful relationships.
Comments
People who do this.
So, not "disease." Perhaps it could be called an "abnormality" or "dysfunction." I mean that psychologically or whatever--like they have a dysfunction; not that they are, themselves, dysfunctional. "Abnormality" seems okay to me because I would define heterosexuality as normal (ie. of the norm), thus being an outlier from normal would then be abnormal.
I wouldn't say it's "genetic" though--at least not entirely. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition toward it, but I disagree both that it's entirely genetic and... for lack of a better word, "uncurable" (I really tried to think of a different word) as people (my cousin for example) are fully capable of first being hetero, then turning gay, and then being hetero again.
EDIT: Someone will want to respond to this by referring to Kinsey's sexuality continuum (ie. people can be partially gay/hetero), but I'm just referring to being gay according to two factors: 1) are you presently having same-sex physical encounters; and 2) do you desire to have same-sex physical encounters.
I hate that word. I mean, you could say someone is "effeminate" or "eccentric" and that's fine. But the word "metrosexual" sounds almost as retarded as "chillax."
Get them a year pass for Christmas.
It is not wrong, just very disturbing.
Rawr.
That's far better. Not doing anything is better than holding your hand over someone like an idiot.
...Thanks for sharing?
Dear God. I shouldn’t have laughed as much as I did at that photo.
It's a slippy slope. Sure, foreplay before marriage might be somewhat reasonable, but your hormones during that experience can get you so turned on that you can end up going further more quickly than you intended.
I don't know who these people are who divorced supposedly because they aren't "sexually compatible," but it makes much more sense to me to reason that someone is far more likely to regret having sex too early in the relationship than to regret having waited until the first time was all the more special.
As for not having sex often enough... women don't want it as badly as often as men do. I can say for certain that I think about it almost every day, but my wife sure doesn't. Does that mean I feel inadequate? No. Do I feel frustrated when I'm interested and she's not? Sure I do. Not always, but sometimes.
Physical touch is my secondary love language (my primary one being words of affirmation). My wife's primary love language is quality time. Certainly, sex is important to me, but I wouldn't divorce my wife simply because I'm not having it enough. Besides, if we're not having it enough, and she genuinely isn't interested very often even after I told her I wanted to have it more, there must be a reason why she's not interested. That is to say, she's unhappy about something or other, and her unhappiness is affecting her interest in physical intimacy.
I know about this from personal experience. And I can say for certain that anyone willing to lose their best and closest friend, to whom they gave, in view of everyone close to them, a special commitment to love, honor and cherish that person for the rest of their life... to lose this person who means more than life itself over something like not having sex often enough is stupid. STUPID.
From what I understand, everyone has different love languages (ie. ways in which they primarily express love toward others and desire for others to express love to them). A woman can certainly have physical touch as her primary love language. I've just found that it's much more likely for men than for women.
EDIT: The reason why I say words of affirmation are my primary love language is because, between not having any sex or not having any affirmation/encouragement, I'm pretty sure the lack of affirmation (with sex) would make me unhappier than would lack of sex (with affirmation). Both are important to me, just one less so than the other.
Good lord, what TV and movies have you been watching?!
Most of the stuff out now has the woman totally ready to have sex at the drop of a hat. Sometimes before the hat drops. Of course, most of those characters were unmarried, and I don't really remember the on screen sexual lifestyles of married couples, so maybe they have the libido suddenly disappear with marriage or something. I dunno.
I completely forgot about that! This would seem to blow my theory out of the water then.
Good. A change for the better.
The media thrives on controversy. They want people in the public eye to have family/marital problems because it generates news and gossip.
The unfortunate thing about TV shows and movies is that they have such an impact on so many, and they are no standard by which people should measure successful relationships.
That can be important down the line.
Scary but true. This is why I try not to judge. My rule is, if it turns you on (and doesn't hurt anybody else/break any major laws) go for it.
This is, perhaps, a dangerous question to ask. However, I've gotta know: How did you know he was into bestiality?
The screams of a dog coming from his house. That and his loud ass grunting.
Ba-dum tish.
Mine does after Christmas meal.